Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly
| Contig ID | Chimera Type | Confidence | Decision | Breakpoint | Evidence Types | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 908 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 908, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2922 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,922, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2240 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,240, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 6627 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,627, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1356 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,356, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1488 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,488, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 926 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 926, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3856 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,856, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 560 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 560, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 6302 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,302, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 5082 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,082, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 380 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 380, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4175 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,175, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.16) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3562 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,562, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 6149 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,149, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3474 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,474, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4465 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,465, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.11) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2003 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,003, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 801 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 801, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3492 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,492, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1028 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,028, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2229 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,229, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 6261 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,261, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:
Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:
Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.